Intelligent Design

Sal Cordova Withdraws from the ID Movement

Spread the love

After spending the last few years pretending to be an ID proponent, all the while bashing every other ID proponent and disparaging most ID ideas, Salvador Cordova has finally come clean and formally withdrawn from the ID movement.  Here.  He did it over at The Skeptical Zone, of course, where he has found a home with more like-minded folks.

58 Replies to “Sal Cordova Withdraws from the ID Movement

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Cordova’s reasoning is weak. He accepts Stonehenge was designed because he believes it could have been built by humans. Why? He says it’s because he has seen humans build other things. Did he he see humans build Stonehenge? Nope. Methinks Sal is ready for his pull-ups.

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    IMHO . . .

    Of course ID is not falsifiable. That’s because it’s not a theory, but a paradigm, a presumption of design that seems to speed rather than hinder scientific advancement.

    In contrast, the paradigm of random, undirected change is also not falsifiable, but this Darwinian paradigm seems to retard scientific advancement by assuming biological systems are most likely to have no purpose, such as “junk” DNA for example.

    Sal apparently choked on a red herring.

    -Q

  3. 3
    Robert Byers says:

    Its not a rejection that a creator did the creation but that it can’t be scientifically showed. ID can’t be put under the methodology that is used by science to make a conclusion.
    This is indeed opposite to the whole point of iD.
    ID is about being demonstrated by human investigation of nature.
    SC is wrong about this.
    The bible says creation proves a creator. Thats the proof. Excellent stuff.
    The creator is invisible but one sees his creation.

    mankind also has always said creation shows a thinking creator of great intelligence.
    The iD movement, some YEC, insist and am right that a creator can be proven by the complexity of creation. It really is so complex smart people will never create anything. Can’t even tweek things to fix them as we know by our health problems.

    Hopefully SC is making a fine point as opposed to a rejection that the creator can’t be proven by scientific investigation. Maybe just talking about details.
    I’m sure he clobbers evolution and those saying they prove creation was from chance.
    Yet ID is more. its about proving the creator from natures evidence.
    the fingerprints of gOD are TRULY on nature.

  4. 4
    StephenB says:

    Sal

    I accept stonehenge was intelligently designed because I’ve seen humans make similar artifacts….

    Sal

    I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things….

    If you are OK with calling ID science for man-made things, then why did you just reject ID science for man-made things by saying that you accept design in stonehedge because you have seen humans make similar artifacts, indicating that it is not because you can detect design in it’s features?

  5. 5

    How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument?

  6. 6
    News says:

    It would be interesting if Sal Cordova could cite something other than general philosophical opinions for his change of views.

    For example, was he not a Young Earth Creationist? Is he not still? One feels there is more to this story something untold, but perhaps only he could tell it.

  7. 7
    Bob O'H says:

    Denyse – I’m sure being compared to a Nazi Collaborator didn’t help keep Sal in the fold.

  8. 8
    Jorge says:

    When Sal left a email group (just recently), he wrote:

    “But I am continuing my investigation and promotion of ID.”

    He follows that up with what he wrote at The Skeptical Zone.

    Yeah, it’s a bit ‘confusing’. Maybe there’s more that he’s not telling (?). Time will tell …

  9. 9
    gpuccio says:

    Bob O’H:

    Only one thing can rightly keep one “in the fold”: the sincere conviction that the fold is right.

    If Sal has changed his mind, he can only follow his own convictions. As we follow ours.

    He has certainly made some good contributions here, and some others which could be debated.

    I wish him the best.

  10. 10
    News says:

    Bob O’H at 7, Sal and Barry falling out doesn’t explain Sal’s sudden claims in the post above his comments to which you kindly linked.

    I would like to know as a matter of interest if Sal still considers himself a young earth creationist (YEC), as I am sure he did at one time.

    What role does that play in all this? It must play some role. How does it go down at TSZ, one wonders?

  11. 11
    vjtorley says:

    Hi everyone,

    I’d like to help clarify Sal’s present position. If you take the time to scroll through the comments on his post, it isn’t too hard to find out what his views are.

    Regarding young-earth creationism, here’s what Sal says:

    Any such theories of God-did-it-by-evolution would appear to be falsified by evidence genetic entropy.

    God-did-it-by-special-creation seems more believable to me personally, but that’s not science, that’s a belief in miracles…

    I don’t know for sure what happened, but I believe God did it, and it is the God of the Bible partly because of the mtDNA evidence assigning humans, dogs, cattle to have genetic bottle neck at 10,000 years or less and thus nominally consistent with what would be required of to make Christ’s genealogy in Luke Chapter 3 literal.

    And again:

    Noah would be about, eh 4000-5000 years ago….

    But note, the Bible suggest[s] mtDNA eve at 6000 years plus the other mammalian Eve to also have recent bottle necks. Confirmed for humans, cattle, dogs. Human Eve at 6,500 years as attested by review article by Lowe and Scherer.

    Bible suggest[s] ancestor of males was about 2000 years after Eve since Noah’s sons (Y-chromsomes) were married to descendents of Eve, not Noah’s wife. A little inference from Abraham Modal Haplotype would be consistent with Noah around 4000 years ago. So one perspective of DNA evidence is at least consistent with the Genesis account.

    Maybe not convincing to the skeptics here, but if I were a betting man…hey I am a betting man.

    Sounds like he’s still a YEC to me, whatever his views on the status of ID as a science may be.

    Regarding Intelligent Design versus Darwinism, here’s what he says:

    …Darwin and Dawkins argue that natural selection accumulated complex features in living things so that they appear to be designed.

    If theory and evidence shows the net tendency is for natural selection to destroy rather than accumulate complex features, then why should natural selection be argued to be a BlindWatchmaker (Dawkins’ term). A BlindWatch Destroyer is a more accurate description of what theory predicts (like Muller’s ratchet, Black Queen Hypothesis, Behe’s 1st Rule of Adaptation, etc.), and what is actually observed in the lab and field.

    That’s why I don’t believe Natural Selection accounts for complexity in the biosphere. If I weren’t a creationist, I’d probably be scraping for some sort of self-organization, some strange quantum fluctuation, teleological evolution, multi-verses etc.

    It’s because of the Blind Watch Destroyer, I find “God did it” a better explanation for the origin of complex life. I simply don’t believe natural selection can in principle be a Blind Watch Maker based on first principles, and the lab and field evidence bear this out.

    Thus complex life is a miracle, and miracles require a Miracle Maker. That’s my personal belief, it is not science. But I do think genetic entropy is science. It has theory backing up plus experimental and direct and indirect observational facts.

    In other comments on his thread, Sal has been arguing hammer-and-tongs against the evolutionists, in defense of his claim that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

    Sounds like he’s still an ID proponent to me, even if he doesn’t think ID technically qualifies as a science at the present time.

    Who was it that said: “He that is not against us is for us”?

  12. 12
    Yarrgonaut says:

    If we found alien etchings on carved into a rock on another planet, it would be instantly trumpeted as evidence for intelligent alien life despite knowing nothing about the alien designers of those etchings. To hold that a positive identification of design works well there, but not for Intelligent Design seems like an absurd double standard.

    Nonsense like FSM is ruled out easily because speculation and discussion about the designer is not what ID is about. It has nothing to do with empirical detection of design through an inference to the best explanation. This is some of the most elementary stuff about ID, and I would have expected Sal to know this.

    FSM presumably would be discussed in theology, where that joke would be easily shot down.

  13. 13
    Seqenenre says:

    Not only Sal is no longer here at UD, where is BA’77?
    Or did I miss something?

  14. 14
    Yarrgonaut says:

    I see what’s going on here. Sal’s ditching us to hang out with Ken Ham et al.

  15. 15
    gpuccio says:

    Yarrgonaut:

    Of course design detection is science, and of course it does not depend on what we know, or know not, of the designer.

    Even one of our most motivated interlocutors once practically admitted that, if we found, on a far away planet, some arrangement on some wall which corresponds perfectly to one of Shakespeare’s sonnets, he would be impressed and think of design. By some conscious agent who knows that sonnet, I would add.

    It needs not be some human. Indeed, we could be sure that humans never reached that planet before.

    Maybe aliens received information about Shakespeare’s sonnets in some strange way and by some strange technology.

    Maybe God did it.

    Maybe Shakespeare’s soul wanders in space, and can do miracles.

    The point is: we may not have any clue about the explanation, but still we cannot doubt the design.

    And if someone has doubts about the functional complexity of a single sonnet (I certainly haven’t), let’s say that the whole, perfect text of Hamlet is found on that wall, carved apparently by natural events.

    Who would opt for chance?

    Design detection not a science? That is really folly.

  16. 16
    News says:

    vjtorley at 11, thanks for clarifying. If he’s happier at TSZ, many will wish him the best.

  17. 17
    News says:

    Housekeeping note: I spoke to the webmaster, and it may be that the captcha arithmetic test doesn’t now need to be refreshed so often. Wd appreciate feedback.

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    Sal:

    I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things….

    It’s the year 2525. Google BioLabs just succeeded in designing and constructing the first living organism using man-made genetic material. Cordova is resurrected and shown the results. If he’s consistent in his logic, he would have to accept ID as a science and that living organisms on earth were intelligently designed. Of course, they weren’t designed by humans. By whom then?

  19. 19
    Mapou says:

    vjtorley quoting Cordova:

    I don’t know for sure what happened, but I believe God did it, and it is the God of the Bible partly because of the mtDNA evidence assigning humans, dogs, cattle to have genetic bottle neck at 10,000 years or less

    What is this genetic bottleneck that Cordova is alluding to? He is obviously wrong since the fossil record and other evidence show that life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Someone needs to go through Cordova’s mtDNA argument and find the error. There is something wrong with it, no doubt about it. I wish I had some free time to do this but I’m way too busy.

    and thus nominally consistent with what would be required of to make Christ’s genealogy in Luke Chapter 3 literal.

    This is what happens when people worship a book. It’s a dangerous thing. Besides, it’s a form of idolatry, IMO. The Bible exhorts the reader to test ALL things, which include the Bible itself, no?

    As a Christian, I use the Bible as a research book (search and you will find) among many other sources of knowledge. There is truth in all of them. But there are also lies, errors and inconsistencies. The “evil one” has his claws in everything.

  20. 20
    drc466 says:

    Mapou @19,

    He is obviously wrong since the fossil record and other evidence show that life has existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years.

    To put it bluntly, bull. There is one, and only one, method of aging that is even capable of showing “hundreds of millions of years”, and that is long-age radioactive decay. Which measurement method only shows the apparent aging of the material not the rock/fossils around it, is a single equation with multiple assumptions, and yields inconsistent results even from a single sample. (Consider, for example – if you were buried in a layer due to a large-scale local flood, what would radioactive aging show about your fossil layer? Congratulations, you’re 100myo!)
    Contrasted to that is that fact that “hundreds of millions of years old fossils” repeatedly show still extant organic material and un-racemized amino acids, which would not be possible if the fossils really were millions of years old, let alone hundreds of millions. To which evolutionists and long-age ID-ists who declare fervent and religious belief in the mathematical equations of radioactive dating with its multiple assumption, respond by denying that the real-world lab measurements and mathematics behind organic decay is accurate, mumbling excuses about “biofilms” and “iron-rich pools” and “unknown methods of preservation”.

    In case anyone is interested in my support for the above: Dinosaur Soft Tissue.

  21. 21
    Mung says:

    How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument?

    When I want to know if something is designed I flip a coin. Always have, always will.

  22. 22
    Mapou says:

    drc466 @20,

    You’re a crackpot, in my opinion, and so is Cordova. Heck, the entire YEC movement is a Christian crackpot movement. Sometimes, I don’t know which is worse: Christian crackpots or Darwinist crackpots.

    But then again, this is coming from the chief Christian crackpot of them all. Test all things, as the book says.

  23. 23
    Eric Anderson says:

    Barry:

    After spending the last few years pretending to be an ID proponent, all the while bashing every other ID proponent and disparaging most ID ideas . . .

    Barry, I know you and Sal had quite a number of disagreements and that you were not impressed with his approach to things. However, I have appreciated his careful and thoughtful approach over the years, even if we didn’t see eye-to-eye on everything. I don’t think it is fair to say that he was “pretending” or that he was “disparaging.”

    . . . Salvador Cordova has finally come clean and formally withdrawn from the ID movement.

    I haven’t checked out the link yet, but I hope this is not true. Sal has made some important points and good contributions over the years. I would be indeed saddened if he feels he needs to “withdraw” from involvement with ID.

    I can understand withdrawing from active participation in online debates or from certain people who want to take ID into realms beyond the design inference. But I would not understand abandoning the design inference itself. I hope whatever Sal is planning on, he is taking a nuanced approach and distinguishing between the two.

  24. 24
    Mapou says:

    Eric,

    If Cordova no longer thinks that ID is scientific, then he is essentially anti-ID. It does not matter that he believes in ID in his heart.

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    How will ID survive the loss of the coin argument?

    No sophisticated program was ever written by coin flips, whether the coin was “fair” or “weighted”.

    – David L. Abel

  26. 26
    drc466 says:

    Shorter Mapou: I don’t like those facts, so I will call you a name.

  27. 27
    Eric Anderson says:

    Mapou @24:

    If Cordova no longer thinks that ID is scientific, then he is essentially anti-ID.

    No. That is taking it a bridge too far. Sal has expressed in the past a rather narrow view of what constitutes “science.” Furthermore, he has indicated that whether or not something is considered “science” does not mean it isn’t (a) true, and (b) useful. He has been very supportive of ID, its value as a path of investigation, and even its potential truth — even if it is not “science” per his narrow definition.

    I personally disagree with him and think ID, at least the design inference, is very much grounded in and a part of what we can consider science. But it is not fair to say that he has gone off the rails and is anti-ID on that basis alone.

    Sal likes to think of himself as a maverick who stirs up lots of controversy and gets the ID crowd upset. 🙂 Let’s not feed into that perception. He isn’t quite as radical as he would like us to believe. 🙂

    See, for example, Sal’s post here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....taphysics/

    Incidentally, his thread goes off base rather quickly, as he implicitly buys into a flawed “repeatable and observable mechanism” as the litmus test for science. But my point being that even if Sal claims ID is not science, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he doesn’t support ID or even think it is true.

    —–

    Alright, I guess I’d better make my way over to TSZ and see what he actually said that set this thread off . ..

  28. 28
    jerry says:

    I will put in my two cents. I never thought that ID was science but that ID uses science, mathematics and logic to come to certain conclusions about reality. Like science there will never be a certainty about some key issues but an extremely high probability that something unobserved is true or that something else is not true.

    Science is nearly always about finding/detecting regularities (laws) in the world which we then want to explain and finally make predictions based on this new understanding. By definition, ID is about the suspension of regularities (laws) so there is no prediction or testing that is based on laws or regularities. Design is identified when the natural laws were over ridden or there is no possible natural laws that can explain a finding.

    I understand that some like Demski and others have developed some methodology to conclude that certain things were designed. Is that science? Or is it just a very elaborate logic supported by sophisticated mathematics.

    And then there is the various forensic sciences that determine that certain things were probably designed or the result of human action. But here it is usually the suspension of expected natural regularities that leads one to conclusions of human action. We also use our understanding of humans and human actions (sometimes animal actions) to assess whether certain findings were natural or not or what human motivations explains these findings.

  29. 29
    Mapou says:

    Jerry,

    ID is science for a very simple reason. The alternative is obviously crap.

  30. 30
    Eric Anderson says:

    OK, I’ve been over and seen Sal’s short post now.

    Too bad.

    There is a fundamental mistake in his brief two paragraphs, and it looks like he has been drinking some of the Liddle Kool-Aid.

    This

    I accept stonehenge was intelligently designed because I’ve seen humans make similar artifacts. The case of design in life is a different matter because we have not seen a designer of such qualifications directly. . . .

    I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things, but not for God-made things . . .

    is a logical and practical mistake of the highest order.

    Ironically, I have been planning for a couple of weeks to do a detailed post addressing this very same error made by Elizabeth Liddle. I guess I’ll have to include Sal in my post. 🙂

    —–

    However — please note carefully everyone — Sal has not, to my knowledge, disavowed the design inference (although his mistake in forcing a look-back to human experience is exceedingly close to making that error, as I hope to show in my subsequent post). Rather, he seems to be focused, as he has in the past, on whether ID is “science,” using some particular, narrow definition of science.

    We can disagree over the definition of science; philosophers have been doing so for generations. And we can disagree about whether ID falls into some particular definition of science.

    But that does not mean we cannot mutually appreciate the design inference or consider ourselves ID proponents and so on. It is not helpful to throw mud or claim that someone has abandoned ID or withdrawan from the ID movement or turned to the dark side because of a quibble over the above nuances of what constitutes “science” — an issue, that again I remind everyone, has been on the table for centuries.

    I am disheartened to hear that Sal feels he has been seriously mistreated at UD and by certain individuals. I don’t have any personal knowledge of that, but am truly sorry if that has occurred. Sal has many interesting opinions and thoughts and has been around the debate for a long time and — at least in my humble opinion — has many worthwhile things to bring to the discussion.

    —–

    Sal, if you have been banned from UD, I am sorry to hear that. If you have not been banned, yes, please do come over if for just a moment to confirm that you “are still a part of the ID community,” which I am glad to hear.

  31. 31
    Barry Arrington says:

    EA:

    Sal has not, to my knowledge, disavowed the design inference

    Sal says ID is not science. He says ID has no positive case. He says we cannot make any inference to a design in living things except to a supernatural deity. He has rejected all of the main tenants of ID that separate it from YEC creationism. As far as I can see, there is no daylight between him and Ken Ham.

  32. 32
    Virgil Cain says:

    ID has testable entailments and can be falsified. What else does it need to be considered science, especially given that it already exceeds what evolutionism offers and tat is considered to be science?

  33. 33
    jerry says:

    I’m OK with calling ID science for man-made things, but not for God-made things .

    But is life necessarily a God made thing? Certainly an immense intelligence is necessary but it is easy to imagine that humans could start from basic chemistry and create life in a 100 or 200 years. Creating the universe may be beyond what humans can hope to obtain but I don’t think life is of that scale.

    They have all these models of cellular and multi-cellular life to use as a blueprint. Of course without these blueprints it would take a long while for a comparable intelligence.

  34. 34
    StephenB says:

    If I now understand Sal correctly, he was banned from UD prior to his recent controversial comments and cannot respond to anything we say. I wrote my comments @4 to Sal (not about Sal), assuming that he was free to post here. If that is not the case, then I will retire from this thread. I am not going to question or issue challenges to someone who cannot defend himself.

  35. 35
    gpuccio says:

    Stephen:

    I agree with you that Sal should be able to answer here to our comments.

    I will only say, for the sake of general discussion, and regarding the statements reported by Eric at #30, that my ideas are very clear about the main point:

    a) ID is science.

    b) Making a distinction about design detection between man-made things and things that could be designed, but not realistically by humans, is very bad epistemology, and certainly not science.

    c) Implying God by default in the above discussion is bad science and bad philosophy.

    I have already given some pertinent motivations in my post #15.

  36. 36

    I was unaware that Sal could not post here either. However I recognize that Sal has made a career out of sticking his butt up in the air … and so it goes.

    And when I published Biosemiosis.org, Sal stood among the sewer gnats and joined right in. If I remember correctly, without addressing a single ounce of actual content, he characterized my work as “fancy sounding gibberish”. So I have no use for Sal. He can remain off my radar.

  37. 37
    Dionisio says:

    intelligence

    The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries......telligence

    intelligent

    Having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.

    Early 16th century: from Latin intelligent- ‘understanding’, from the verb intelligere, variant of intellegere ‘understand’, from inter ‘between’ + legere ‘choose’.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries......ntelligent

    design

    A plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made.
    1.1 The art or action of conceiving of and producing a plan or drawing of something before it is made.
    1.2 The arrangement of the features of an artefact, as produced from following a plan or drawing.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries......ish/design

    science

    The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Middle English (denoting knowledge): from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries......sh/science

  38. 38
    drc466 says:

    As a YEC, I obviously agree with Sal on many things (see above), but restricting ID to man-made things seems an intuitively flawed position. Can you detect design in a beaver’s dam? A bee’s hive? A spider’s web? I think the distinction is an artificial one, and irrelevant.

  39. 39
    Dionisio says:

    To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.
    – Nicolaus Kopernik.

  40. 40
    J-Mac says:

    Can Sal defend his views here or was he banned?

  41. 41
    J-Mac says:

    YEC absolutely must define what they mean by YEC. The Bible scholars are divided but there are many indications that the creative days are not literal days and that the process of creation of the “Heavens and the Earth” had happened before the creative days begun.

    There is no proof that the creative days are 24 hour day as the bible uses many inscriptions of days of very, very different lengths going from a 24 hour day to 1000 year day in the same context.

  42. 42
    Virgil Cain says:

    J-Mac, Sal can’t defend his views anywhere.

  43. 43
    Dionisio says:

    Most results from observations and experiments performed by research scientists these days are somehow available to other scientists who may analyze the data and draw pertinent conclusions.

    The leading proponents of ID seem very interested in the “intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Therefore, ID could be considered a scientific paradigm.

    The folks involved in the ID discussion seem to come from a wide diversity of philosophical and theological positions. Therefore associating ID with a particular philosophical or theological position seems like a mistake that could lead to a distorted view of ID. From a philosophical/theological perspective ID seems like a huge “eintopf” on steroids. 🙂

    Different opinions on quantum physics, absolute moral laws, NDE, history, politics, the cake baked by auntie Matilda, the age of this planet, the discussed common/uncommon descent subject and many other side topics don’t seem to be explicitly derived from the core ID paradigm, which appears to be focused mainly on the detection of functional specified information within the biological systems, and related concepts like spatiotemporal irreducible complexity (STIC).

    It looks as though, like the rest of the scientific paradigms, ID does not transcend the natural domain. Maybe that’s why ID does not seem concerned about the identity of the source (designer) of the functional specified information that is detected in biology. The ID proponents simply conclude that the design agent must be an intelligent consciousness, based on known precedents for other kinds of designed systems. The central ID paradigm leaves the identity of the source of functional specified information (the designing agent) as an open question outside the ID domain. Perhaps that’s why within ID one can find so many relatively different worldview positions.

    Please, note that I don’t count myself among the ID proponents, because I believe that Christ Jesus created everything (seen or unseen) and everyone that has existed, exists or will exist in this whole universe, without exceptions. My belief is solidly grounded on God’s special revelation to us, which we can accept or reject.

    However, like any scientific discovery, the main ID paradigm -based on the detection of functional specified information within the biological systems- does not seem to conflict with the Christian belief. Actually, ID seems as a small subset within my worldview. The scientific discoveries that confirm the ID paradigm don’t conflict with the Christian belief. That’s why I look forward, with increasing anticipation, to reading future research papers about new discoveries that shed more light on the elaborate cellular and molecular choreographies orchestrated within the biological systems.

    These are fascinating times to watch the scientific discoveries in biology, but people in other times in history also thought they were in fascinating times, and in the future science might present fascinating discoveries too. However, none of that compares with the day when Christ Jesus will come back as it is written. Then every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Christ is Lord. By then it will be too late for those who did not accept God’s gracious way to reconcile with Him eternally.

    Now is the moment in this current age of grace for our Maker to open our spiritual eyes so we can enjoy His glorious presence forever.

    In the meantime, let’s continue watching the fascinating scientific discoveries that at an accelerated pace keep revealing some of the wonders of the ultimate reality.

    To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.
    – Nicolaus Kopernik.

  44. 44
    aqeels says:

    UB @36 – Really good reading at Biosemiosis.org. Enjoying it. 🙂

    Sal had some interesting things to say from time to time so it is a shame that he is not posting here anymore. I was looking forward to his comments in this thread, but none came.

  45. 45
    Axel says:

    Mapou, your #29 :

    ‘…. ID is science for a very simple reason. The alternative is obviously crap.’

    A laughably simple, but utterly seminal insight ! What discoveries have a faith in the design capabilities of random chance have ever led to any scientific discovery ?

    When you think of the term, ‘the scientific method’ and such recurrent words in this context as ‘methodology’, ‘system’, virtually any concept implying the use of intelligence, even a magpie’s, it is patently manifest that ‘the alternative is crap’- indeed, is crap, a priori, given that it must always amount to nihilism.

    We’re robots, aren’t we, incapable of designing without input from a deus ex machina. Oh My. I haven’t let God’s foot in the door, have I ?

  46. 46
    Axel says:

    Go on… It’s just an excuse so Sal can spend more of his time playing poker. He’ll be back.

  47. 47

    Hello Aqeels,

    I am glad that you are enjoying it. If you have an extra moment, please consider leaving a comment.

    Gracias mi amigo (amiga).

  48. 48
    Mung says:

    Axel: It’s just an excuse so Sal can spend more of his time playing poker.

    Thankfully the casinos don’t have coin-tossing games, we’d never see Sal again.

  49. 49
    Axel says:

    ha ha I think you’re right, there, esteemed Mung !

  50. 50
    Dr JDD says:

    RE the mtDNA comment – probably something to do with this:

    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mitochondrial-genome-mutation-rate-/

    RE J-macs comment – can you show me where in the Bible a day is defined as possessing evening and morning and not referring to a 24hr day? The 24hr day is actually the least of the pile of literal reasons the YEC accepts a young earth – it more so comes from the necessity of taking that portion of the Bible literal in order to adhere to sound hermeneutical doctrine found in the rest of the Bible, and how old ages end up with accepting things that are ireconcilablewith such sound doctrine.

  51. 51
    J-Mac says:

    “J-Mac, Sal can’t defend his views anywhere.

    I don’t think Sal is getting a fair treatment here at UD after his many contributions. I like his style and he is definitely a believer in a Superior Being. To throw away his valuable contributions into the sewer doesn’t meet any of the “Christian” qualities… There is still the story of the prodigal son… The prostitute that repented and the apostle Peter who denied Jesus in his most trying time. Don’t you think Sal should get a break? He is a very insightful man. Why bash him without the full picture and his side of the story?

  52. 52
    Mapou says:

    J-Mac,

    Anybody who insists that a story about a devious talking snake that deceives a naked woman in a garden and about trees whose fruits give the eater immortality and divine knowledge of good and evil, anybody who claims that such a story should be taken literally is off his rocker.

    Cordova should stay at the Skeptical Zone where he belongs. They appreciate nonsense over there much more than we do here at UD. Although, I must admit, we see of lot of the same nonsense over here too.

  53. 53
    Mung says:

    Salvador was called on to repent, repeatedly.

  54. 54
    Mapou says:

    I never thought I’d live to see the day when YECs and atheists form an alliance. We live in interesting times.

  55. 55
    bevets says:

    Darwin on Trial became a uniting force around which many like-minded individuals—scholars of many stripes, churchgoers, students, and even open-minded agnostics who dared extend their skepticism to Darwin—could rally. For many, that rallying cry ultimately became “Intelligent Design!” ~ Phillip Johnson

    Before ID OECs and YECs spent most of their time tearing each other down. The genius of Johnson was that he saw an opportunity to unite the factions against the common opponent of naturalism.

  56. 56
    Mung says:

    Salvador claims Barry bullied him and he [Salvador] never had the guts to say what he really thought when he was posting here. Meanwhile, over at TSZ, he feels he is among friends.

  57. 57
    kllrDogThermo says:

    Sal falling for the idea that man made objects can be identified by design while supernatural design cannot be distinguished is puzzling to me. That opinion essentially makes ID useless in the evolution debate. I was just curious to what happened to the guy. Did his wife or girlfriend dump him and run off with another guy? Just wondering?

  58. 58
    ET says:

    ID does not require the supernatural.

Leave a Reply